Check Post Times Before Voting No:Repeat, Please

It should not take too much effort to check the time of the post before voting down a story. This has happened to me several times, and it just
happened again a minute ago. I got a NO:Repeat vote for a story posted a day in advance of the two copies of it that appeared after the fact.

So consider this a friendly reminder, put your repeat votes where they belong.

I would implore members to not consider the time of posting, but the quality of the post when voting. Because a submission is posted first should not
be sufficient cause to vote for it over a submission posted later that is of better quality. Personally, I think that the quality of submissions has
suffered. One of the worst is the "Breaking News," as if that fact justifies a one sentence introduction riddled with grammatical and spelling
errors.

Grady
I think that goes without saying. In that case you could vote NO:Grammar for the terrible one(s), and vote YES for the acceptable submission.

I didn't want to give the impression that first is what counts, but when it's a toss up between two or more practically identical stories, I think
it makes sense to vote for the one that was first written. This is a reward for the author, for being on the ball, yaknow?

I have no idea what exact instance you are speaking of, so I assure you I'm not speaking specifically about your case, but there is always the
outside chance that the member read both and chose the other article and had no closer reason for voting no than - repeat story.

I really loathe these threads. Why not we just decide that we all have a fairly equivalent measure of grey matter and let the chips fall as they may
- lest we find out things we really didn't want to know.

Well, I had a submission taken down the other day. I posted it after someone else, but mine met minimum criteria and was voted up first. I know
it's all a judgement call, but everyone kept posting that mine was late and needed to be taken down, which I refused to do, becuase I felt mine was
better. I won't mention any names, but an admin intervened and mine was sent to the trash bin.

It's no big deal in the long haul, but it would be nice if members considered criteria when voting.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I would implore members to not consider the time of posting, but the quality of the post when voting. Because a submission is posted first should not
be sufficient cause to vote for it over a submission posted later that is of better quality. Personally, I think that the quality of submissions has
suffered. One of the worst is the "Breaking News," as if that fact justifies a one sentence introduction riddled with grammatical and spelling
errors.

[edit on 2005/8/1 by GradyPhilpott]

I totally agree with this. I've seen to many "Breaking story" threads with little more than "More to come". How does that improve ATSNN? It
doesn't. It's a community, as long as the news gets out there, does it matter who got it there? I don't think so. The reporters here should be
proud to be a part of ATSNN, not in competition with each other.

I have no idea what exact instance you are speaking of, so I assure you I'm not speaking specifically about your case, but there is always the
outside chance that the member read both and chose the other article and had no closer reason for voting no than - repeat story.

Yeah, that's certainly a possibility. In this particular case my story was the only one out of three that met the criteria for a news submission,
the other two were improperly formatted, hastily written, and used the exact same source article as mine.

There's also the accidental votes, someone mentioned this earlier. The buttons are kinda small, so there's a chance of getting the odd wierd vote
that way. I know all this, but I thought it might be a good idea to remind people to take time into consideration, since this is..I think the third
time it's happened to me.

I really loathe these threads. Why not we just decide that we all have a fairly equivalent measure of grey matter and let the chips fall as they may -
lest we find out things we really didn't want to know.

I have no idea what you're trying to convey with this, care to explain?

Intrepid

Intrepid
It's a community, as long as the news gets out there, does it matter who got it there? I don't think so. The reporters here should be proud to be a
part of ATSNN, not in competition with each other.

Absolutely, that's the bottom line. I'm not losing any sleep over these sorts of situations, because the most important thing is that the
information becomes available to ATS.

If I appear overly-competetive, I'm sorry, that's really not the case. I just noticed a trend, and thought I'd bring it up. Sorry if it appears
I'm trying to win, or something.

No man, not you that I've seen but those type of post don't do anything for ATSNN, imo. If it's news, make it so, if it's not, PLEASE, don't post
a "More to come" story. We are not the only ones that come here for news, let's do the forum proud. If he, she, they get the news out, GREAT. I
think a little less competition between the reporters and a little more cooperation will make ATSNN the best sourse of news on the planet. It's up to
you guys though.

I think the point is that we're concerned about ATSNN and we prefer meaningful feedback. Small buttons are a problem. I have hit the wrong one from
time to time and sadly, I have voted for submissions I hated and voted against submissions I liked because I hit the button reflexively without proper
care.

People should really try to vote on every submission that they read. I've had ones that have 50 something views, and had only received a single No
vote, but still hadn't been upgraded. That means that the majority of people reading and viewing articles aren't even bothering to vote on them!
Which is pretty nutty. There isnt' anywhere else that you get to decide these sorts of things.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.